*Content warnings: Discussion of discrimination, abortion, childbirth and pregnancy, Rape and sexual assault, euthanasia.
The Pro-Life Society has been nothing short of contentious on campus. Since its creation in January 2024, student opposition has been made unmistakably clear. An online petition calling for the society’s dissolution quickly amassed over 15,000 signatures, and multiple protests followed. At the first Union Assembly of the 24/25 academic year, a motion declaring the SU pro-choice passed with a landslide majority of 93%.
Yet, this has done little to deter the Society. Most recently, the group held a vigil for Charlie Kirk on campus on 10 November 2025, an event that was once again met with an overwhelmingly large counter-protest organised by left-wing and feminist student groups.
Back in November, The Mancunion spoke with the Pro-Life Society’s President and Vice President to understand how the Society views itself, its role on campus, and why it believes its activism is both misunderstood and necessary.
What followed was a long and heavy interview, reflecting both the seriousness with which the Society approaches its cause, and the depth of the divisions it continues to provoke.
Becoming pro-life
As we sat down with the President and Vice President of the Society, they shared how they first encountered the pro-life movement. “It left a pretty sad taste in my mouth”, the Vice President shared, recalling YouTube videos and discussions about abortion as a teenager. He took a moral philosophical lens: “if these are human beings from conception”, it followed that “the law protects people destroying […] human beings, for lack of a better phrase”.
Similarly, the President’s interest in the abortion debate sparked in secondary school, but while she has “always been pro-life”, the “first time [she] actually voiced the opinion was in Year 8”. She emphasised what she saw as pressures on women surrounding pregnancy, arguing that society has “made [pregnancy] seem like this huge burden”. She also emphasised the unbalanced power dynamic when partners have “tried to push” women to get an abortion, saying this does not give women a “proper choice”.
Part of the President’s pro-life activism is a desire to celebrate and make women “feel comfortable with the life she’s carrying”. Her activism extends to regular volunteer work for a post-abortive care helpline to support women who are “suffering trauma or guilt” after abortions, which she describes as “completely impartial”. She acknowledges that whilst it is a “minority of women” who regret their decision to have an abortion, it still “happens to some women”.
Despite their strongly held convictions, they both shared how they have questioned their pro-life beliefs throughout their life. In fact, they both agreed that “most of the people” they surround themselves with hold “opposite views” to them, which has merely strengthened their perspective on the issue.
At University, however, the pro-life issue is particularly polarising. They both feel that there has been unfair “kickback” because protestors “don’t know us personally”. The Vice President described it as difficult to oppose abortion in a “dominant” pro-choice campus culture, adding that some of his friendships had “broken down” as a result.
The President shared that some protestors have made “wild claims” and “completely think we’re monsters”, recounting the society’s first event, where a man told her to “get raped”.
Despite these challenges, they both stated that they are “proud” and “happy” to be representing the pro-life movement on campus. The President added that she feels it “quite important to get both men and women on the issue”, and to show that the Pro-Life Society are not “monsters” or “strange”.
Pro-life on campus
When asked why they felt it was important to establish a Pro-Life Society on campus, the President argued that universities were a formative political space, and thus uniquely suited to difficult moral debates.
The basic founding principle of the Society is a commitment to “supporting every life” from “conception right to natural death”. This is grounded in the belief in the fundamental and universal “emphasis on the dignity of human life”. From the outset, the Vice President was keen to stress that this “extends to all people, no matter […] age, where they are, what the circumstances [they have]”.
But given the Society’s emphasis on the dignity of all human lives, The Mancunion asked why their activism focused on euthanasia and abortion specifically.
In response, the Vice President argued that “we can’t fight every front”, adding that “the more you try to do, the less […] effective you are”. He pointed instead to the existence of “several other organisations and movements” who focus on such issues, that are “probably doing a better job that we could realistically”.
Abortion and euthanasia, he maintained, posed “the biggest” and most “direct threats to the right to life”, affecting what he described as an “underrepresented group”. The society, he said, therefore seeks to “fill that void and step up for them as well”.
At the same time, the Vice President was careful to underscore that he still believed that the dignity of human life “should be upheld wherever it’s relevant”, calling on governments to “take great care not to dehumanise” refugees, “whatever the circumstances”.
A main goal of the society was to campaign the SU to “signpost […] support” and “monetary funds” for pregnant students, alongside the current access to abortion information available on the SU website. They envisioned the society as a place for “cordial” and “open discussion”, and where “we get people in to talk about euthanasia, abortion, and plenty of different issues”.
Both expressed regret that the controversy surrounding the society had limited this dialogue: the President felt that their intentions as a society had been “lost somewhere in the communication”, expressing frustration at the perceived “rhetoric” associated with pro-lifers.
When pushed about the harms of their group’s rhetoric, the President emphasised that it is “definitely not the objective” or the “aim of the society at all to intrude on anyone’s personal decisions”. She clarified the group’s focus on “wanting to give information [out]” and having the voice of the “unborn child […] be heard”.
The Vice President agreed that they “don’t intend to shame people” or “make them feel guilty”. He also argued that the group was just like any other society on campus, sharing that he was “passionate” in “confronting other people with these hard questions”, just as “plenty of societies […] especially political ones”, are “interested in making their views heard”.
He added that the society does not hold a “fringe conspiracy view” and tries not to be “obnoxious”, and in fact “voice our views very peacefully”. Instead, “it’s often the other side who try and intrude and shut us down”.
Scientific support
Both of them insisted there was a scientific basis for their belief that life begins at conception, arguing that embryos constitute a “separate” and “different” piece of DNA from that point. The President added that “there’s nothing you can add to make it more human”, as the embryo already has everything needed to be classed as human.
While the Vice President acknowledged “different aspects of the debate” about when life begins, he argued that this lack of consensus reinforces conception as the “only point” at which the beginning of personhood can be consistently located.
The claims they make are scientifically and conceptually complex. Fertilisation produces a zygote that does contain a new, distinct genetic structure, which under the right conditions, develops through the stages of pregnancy.
Yet, most experts disagree that genetic distinctiveness alone qualifies as sufficient criteria to determine the beginning of human life. Competing frameworks variously locate the beginning of life at fertilisation, implantation, the development of neurological activity, viability outside the womb, or birth itself. Many scholars acknowledge that determining the beginning of life inherently requires philosophical, anthropological, and theological considerations alongside biology.
The definition of the term “conception” matters, too – fertilisation of an egg may not necessarily result in pregnancy, which is defined as the beginning of implantation. Many embryos can fail to implant and are lost before a pregnancy is clinically recognised. In this context, the presence of distinct DNA itself does not guarantee implantation or pregnancy, and thus life.
Nevertheless, this perceived scientific basis, in a way, makes the Vice President feel comfortable speaking on the issue. The President is the only woman on the Pro Life Society committee, which itself is dominated by male members.
When brought up, the Vice President acknowledged that the abortion debate is “obviously affecting another group which [he’s] not part of”, but argued that the “truth doesn’t change”, and thus “anyone is able to voice their opinion on it”.
Ties to external organisations
When asked about their society’s links to external groups, both of them confirmed ties to Alliance for Pro-Life Students, who give them “advice on how to run a society and how to deal with backlash”. They also discussed their collaboration and campaigning for Alma Mater Fund and Life Charity.
We asked whether the society has any ties to Voice for Justice UK (VfJUK), a Pro-Life organisation that is anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-Islam. The President replied that they are “not really partnered” with them and that the Charlie Kirk Memorial Cup she received was awarded through “March For Life UK […] not Voice for Justice”.
The Charlie Kirk Memorial Cup was awarded by a collection of ten pro-life organisations, including VfJUK and March for Life UK. The Society’s Instagram post announcing the award was also published in collaboration with VfJUK, referencing the President’s participation with their Commission of Inquiry into Discrimination Against Christians. There is no mention of March For Life UK in the post.
The society also invited Lois Miller, from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), to speak at the Charlie Kirk Vigil. The Southern Poverty Law Centre designates the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ hate group based off their support for the recriminalisation of sexual acts between consenting queer adults in the US, as well as defending state sanctioned sterilisation of transgender people abroad.
When presented with this information, the Vice President emphasised that he wasn’t “personally aware” of the organisation’s designation as a hate group. They both felt that they should not be held accountable for the beliefs other groups have, even if they are publicly associated with them.
The Vice President argued that the society seeks to “speak on certain issues without endorsing everything else that anyone has ever said”. Due to the “polarised” nature of politics, certain topics like abortion “tend to fall on one side” of the political spectrum, referring to the political right, which can present the group in a way that may not reflect the opinions of everyone in the society.
The President added that LGBTQ members of the pro-life society understood the society was not “endorsing everything” the speaker or organisation “has ever said”. The Vice President added that the LGBTQ members of the society “did not have a problem” with the invitation, even suggesting that interpreting the society as anti-LGBTQ for inviting a member of the ADF “would be a stretch […] too far for anyone to make”.
Finally, the Vice President argued that the society “wasn’t platforming [Lois Miller] as a political speaker”, but that Miller was “someone who has expertise in this area […] here to give you a talk”.
Sexual assault and rape
As the Vice President set out his opposition to what he termed “widespread abortion”, one argument he made was that it can “hide underlying issues” such as coercion or sexual abuse.
“On the subject of sexual assault”, the Vice President then continued, despite there having been no prior discussion of rape, he added that abortion “diminishes the atrocity” of rape and “the sin of the rapist”.
What ensued was an unexpected and intense debate. When probed further, the Vice President clarified that allowing abortion in cases of sexual assault enables one to “basically get rid of any consequences”. He advocated for stricter laws on rape, describing current UK legislation as “far too lax”, arguing that rapists should “bear the full consequence” and “deserve a lot more punishment than they currently get”.
Despite his call for tougher penalties, it remained unclear how this would support survivors in dealing with the reality of pregnancy and childrearing. When asked whether he believed rapists should play a role in raising children conceived through rape, the Vice President promptly replied “No, no no. Obviously, go to jail”, pausing, but then adding, “and probably pay support […] where it’s possible”.
The President also agreed, arguing that children who are products of rape “don’t […] have any less right to life than I do”. She rejected the characterisation that pro-lifers seek to force women to carry pregnancies resulting from rape. She also suggested that “many” women who continue pregnancies resulting from rape “help them heal from [the effects of rape]”. There is no statistical evidence to support this claim.
Attempting to return to the central discussion, The Mancunion posed a final question: how did this framing address the enduring trauma faced by survivors compelled to carry such pregnancies?
When put to them, the President responded, “I wouldn’t say it is fair, but I don’t think it’s fair to get rid of the child”. The Vice President simply added, “we can’t change that”.
Charlie Kirk vigil
As our conversation drew to a close, the discussion turned to the Pro-Life Society’s most recent and perhaps most controversial event – a vigil honouring Charlie Kirk, the American conservative commentator and pro-life advocate who was killed in September 2025. Following his death, the society shared a post on Instagram announcing a memorial to honour and show condolences to the Kirk family, sparking a wave of criticism on campus.
The President clarified that she did not “necessarily agree” with his opinions on gun violence. While the Vice President showed some scepticism toward our characterisation of the nature of Kirk’s words, saying that “I suppose it depends on what you mean by a perpetrator of hate”. He also clarified that, “I certainly don’t agree with much of what he said”.
So, why Charlie Kirk?
For the Vice President, the decision to hold the vigil was easy: Charlie Kirk “obviously was quite outspoken against abortion”, and was a “champion of opening dialogue and […] free speech”, so we “wanted to celebrate that part of his legacy”. But most importantly, in the Vice President’s words, Kirk was “unjustly murdered” for his views.
The President agreed, adding that “I can understand if you would feel relief at certain people […] dying”, but “dressing up as them”, referring to a counter-protestor dressed as Kirk with a gunshot wound went a bit “further than just relief”.
The Vice President likened Kirk’s experience to his own as a pro-lifer on campus. He described the society’s work as “very similar” to Kirk’s, adding that, in the past, himself and society members had experienced “violence and some pretty intimidating backlash”, including “weekly […] verbal and physical” threats on Instagram, and “dealing with death threats”.
Against this backdrop, he said witnessing Kirk “suffering that, but to the extreme” – referring to his assassination – made it feel “kind of appropriate” to hold a vigil for him. The message the society wanted to send is that “we oppose this kind of intimidation, this kind of violence”, no matter “whatever political affiliation you have”.
When asked about the backlash, the President shared that she “couldn’t fathom that anyone would protest a memorial”, but added that she wasn’t scared. The Vice President also recalled the atmosphere as “tense” and “a bit intimidating”. He described the counterprotestors as “a bit rowdy”, with some protestors “trying to fight past the police and [destroy] our property”.
But as our conversation came to an end, one thing was clear: the Pro-Life Society is here to stay. They view their advocacy work as extremely important: “No one’s ever going to change their mind [without these open discussions]”, the Vice President argued, “the most important thing” is “being able to” have them.
But they also accepted that this would likely continue with great controversy, even agreeing that such protests are part of a healthy democracy. “We want to be strong and be courageous”, the Vice President concludes, “we’re going to be […] brave in the face of it”.
If you have been affected by issues in this article, help and support are available at:
The University of Manchester Sexual Health Support – Student Support | Sexual Wellbeing – The University of Manchester’s list of sexual health and sexual empowerment resources.
Manchester Students’ Union Sexual Violence Support Drop-in – monthly drop-in sessions to provide information, advice and support about any form of sexual violence, harassment, abuse or rape.
The University of Manchester Report and Support – Support from a trained advisor for students who have experienced or witnessed any form of bullying, harassment, discrimination, gender-based violence, hate or micro-aggressions.
You can also contact the 24-hour mental health helpline at 0800 953 0285. Or SHOUT 85258, a 24/7 text message service.
